While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in 2006, and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree.
Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
